Hamilton's public health officials are poised to charge a number of businesses for violating the city's no-smoking bylaw.

Since June 1, when the municipality's stricter no-smoking bylaw went into effect, the health department has issued 76 tickets to about 14 businesses who consider themselves "private clubs" for violating the city's no-smoking bylaw, said Stan Yung, manager of the city's Health Protection branch.

Most of the establishments, he said, are in Hamilton, with one located in the rural area.

The bylaw has easier regulations if a business is a private club.

But Mr. Yung said other private clubs, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, do comply with the bylaw when they hold functions.

"The investigation is on going," he said. "We have been busy during the summer."

On June 1, smoking was prohibited in all places, except for businesses that created designated smoking rooms.

Meanwhile, the health department bylaw officers will be out in force conducting a "blitz" over the next few weeks to educate and warn owners of bars and restaurants about prohibiting smoking in enclosed spaces.

During the summer bars and restaurants avoided building designated smoking rooms by allowing patrons to smoke on patios. To get around the bylaw, some bars and restaurants created patios using fences, cutting out a wall and extending the bar to the outside or putting up a temporary roof.

Mr. Yung said his staff have examined all the bars and restaurants in the city that have patios since the tougher no-smoking restrictions went into effect in June.

If any owners of bars and restaurants attempt to create a patio where there wasn't one before, Mr. Yung's staff will know about it.

Bar and restaurant owners need permission from the city to build a patio, said Mr. Yung. He said if not, a patio could block a fire exit, or the structure could damage the existing building.

"Once they have the okay (from the city), they need to get a building permit, he said.

City officials acknowledge the definition of a patio in Hamilton's bylaw is "vague" which is one reason bylaw officials and planning officials met this week to establish proper definitions of a patio.

Some municipalities across the province define a patio differently than Hamilton does, for instance using square footage as a guideline. Hamilton defines a patio as a space with a roof and two walls.

"There should be no third wall," he said.

Overall, Mr. Yung said the compliance rate for bars and restaurants in Hamilton has been high, with owners following the stricter guidelines.

"We are very pleased with the compliance rate," he said.

City officials will be sending owners a letter reminding them of the restrictions on patios respecting the no-smoking regulations, he said.

"As we get the colder weather, we want to re-inform owners that the bylaw is still in effect," said Mr. Yung. "We are checking everybody."

Hamilton is expected to go smoke-free by June 1, 2008 when designated smoking rooms are eliminated.

The Liberal government has promised it will introduce a bill in the legislature to establish a no-smoking policy for the entire province.

"Right now there is no standard," said Mr. Yung.

"We are expecting the province to ban or sunset the no-smoking policy across the province."

rules still in effect

Hamilton's public health officials are poised to charge a number of businesses for violating the city's no-smoking bylaw.

Since June 1, when the municipality's stricter no-smoking bylaw went into effect, the health department has issued 76 tickets to about 14 businesses who consider themselves "private clubs" for violating the city's no-smoking bylaw, said Stan Yung, manager of the city's Health Protection branch.

Most of the establishments, he said, are in Hamilton, with one located in the rural area.

The bylaw has easier regulations if a business is a private club.

But Mr. Yung said other private clubs, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, do comply with the bylaw when they hold functions.

"The investigation is on going," he said. "We have been busy during the summer."

On June 1, smoking was prohibited in all places, except for businesses that created designated smoking rooms.

Meanwhile, the health department bylaw officers will be out in force conducting a "blitz" over the next few weeks to educate and warn owners of bars and restaurants about prohibiting smoking in enclosed spaces.

During the summer bars and restaurants avoided building designated smoking rooms by allowing patrons to smoke on patios. To get around the bylaw, some bars and restaurants created patios using fences, cutting out a wall and extending the bar to the outside or putting up a temporary roof.

Mr. Yung said his staff have examined all the bars and restaurants in the city that have patios since the tougher no-smoking restrictions went into effect in June.

If any owners of bars and restaurants attempt to create a patio where there wasn't one before, Mr. Yung's staff will know about it.

Bar and restaurant owners need permission from the city to build a patio, said Mr. Yung. He said if not, a patio could block a fire exit, or the structure could damage the existing building.

"Once they have the okay (from the city), they need to get a building permit, he said.

City officials acknowledge the definition of a patio in Hamilton's bylaw is "vague" which is one reason bylaw officials and planning officials met this week to establish proper definitions of a patio.

Some municipalities across the province define a patio differently than Hamilton does, for instance using square footage as a guideline. Hamilton defines a patio as a space with a roof and two walls.

"There should be no third wall," he said.

Overall, Mr. Yung said the compliance rate for bars and restaurants in Hamilton has been high, with owners following the stricter guidelines.

"We are very pleased with the compliance rate," he said.

City officials will be sending owners a letter reminding them of the restrictions on patios respecting the no-smoking regulations, he said.

"As we get the colder weather, we want to re-inform owners that the bylaw is still in effect," said Mr. Yung. "We are checking everybody."

Hamilton is expected to go smoke-free by June 1, 2008 when designated smoking rooms are eliminated.

The Liberal government has promised it will introduce a bill in the legislature to establish a no-smoking policy for the entire province.

"Right now there is no standard," said Mr. Yung.

"We are expecting the province to ban or sunset the no-smoking policy across the province."

rules still in effect

http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&call_pageid=1069851995821&c=Article&cid=1098438375460

Is this what we want?

It isn't just the familiar tax-and-spend routine that signals the Liberals are in the driver's seat in Ontario.

It is also the sense of a growing interference in the everyday lives of residents, combined with what looks alarmingly like a jump in secrecy at Queen's Park.

After one year in power, the Liberals appear poised to be peeking over our collective shoulders at every opportunity. Photo radar is back on the table, ready to take snapshots of people and their vehicles as they drive. A newly-proposed pit bull ban has dog lovers wondering what breed might be next, while a new video rating system is set to prevent youths from accessing the more explicitly violent or sexual video games.

Junk food has been banned in schools and smoking in cars also looks to be in the government's sights.

There might well be plausible, even justifiable, reasons for all these government intrusions into our daily lives. Bad drivers kill people. Pit bull attacks are unreasonably harmful and violent and sexually explicit video games are hardly ideal for anyone, never mind impressionable teens.

Still, it is important that society takes note of the freedoms that are steadily disappearing in the guise of public good.

The slippery slope argument is a well-worn one for a simple reason ñ it has proved true, time and again. It is apathy, not antipathy, that is the true oil of repression.

But while the government has been barging into our homes, schools and cars with parental zeal to remake Ontario for our own good, there is some indication it is becoming something less than clear in its own dealings.

A case in point is the super-secret tentative deal struck between the Liberals and the Ontario Medical Association recently that looks at giving doctors raises of up to 35 per cent if they join in family health centres, while lifting a $455,000 billing cap for specialists.

It was hammered out over a period of months under a veil of silence. Once the inevitable leaks began flowing, both Premier Dalton McGuinty and Health Minister George Smitherman refused to divulge the actual four-year costs of the deal, which could be ratified next month.

The government insists this is no big deal. But the government is wrong, as it is taxpayers who will fund every penny of the pact.

Another example is the bureaucratic report estimating the true cost of the Liberals' campaign promises that was blocked by the government until a Freedom of Information ruling ordered its release.

And some critics have also found it passing strange that Cyndy DeGiusti, vice-president of child advocacy at Sick Kids Hospital, handed in her resignation only days after publically stating that a $45-million budget shortfall at the hospital could impact patient care.

Opposition speculation, fueled by admissions from anonymous hospital sources, is that the long-time Sick Kids employee ran afoul of government directives in speaking out. The basis for the speculation includes a provincial communications strategy for hospitals that offers tips on balancing hospital budgets alongside exhortations to keep its public messages "in a spirit of cooperation" with the government.

Critics see this as a not-so-veiled call to keep hospitals singing from the same songbook (a charge the Liberals deny) in order to win favour from a party that is playing the heavy despite the windfall of the Ontario health care premium and Prime Minister Paul Martin's $41-billion largesse.

Earlier this week, opposition MPPs were calling for a legislative committee to probe DeGiusti's resignation. A typical political power play? Maybe. But an overview of the last year paints a disconcerting picture of a government increasingly invading in the private lives of residents while draping its dealings in secrecy.

Ontarians can decide for themselves ñ is this the Ontario you want?

If it isn't, contact your MPP and tell him or her so, pronto, lest voter silence be mistaken for consent.

The Issue

Governmental

intrusion

Our View

Pay attention

to what is being taken away

editor comments on loss of rights

http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&call_pageid=1069851995821&c=Article&cid=1098396616856

The former owner of the city's blue box recycling facility on Burlington Street East will spend the next two years trying to rid it of an industrial solvent that is contaminating groundwater beneath the site.

PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc. will inject chemical and molasses solutions into the ground as part of a remediation plan approved by the Ministry of the Environment on Sept. 23.

Groundwater at the former Firestone site is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) at depths of up to eight metres, according to the approval, posted on the ministry's Environmental Bill of Rights website.

Michael Jovanovic, PSC's general manager of operations, said his company's corporate predecessor, Philip Services Corp., agreed to fix the problem when it transferred ownership to the city nearly three years ago.

Philip also used portions of the site to store and transfer wastes, including hazardous electric arc furnace dust.

Mr. Jovanovic said he's not sure of the source of the TCE, a degreasing solvent linked to cancer and liver problems, but the contamination is in low concentrations in the north-west end of the property and predates Philip operations.

"Based on the natural degradation that's taken place already, the consultants tell me it's probably been in the ground 25, 30 years, if not longer. So take that back and you can pretty much guess where it was," he said.

"I can't speculate where it came from or what components of the property it came from, but it's there."

To address the problem, Mr. Jovanovic said PSC will pump chemical and molasses solutions into a series of trenches and wells to encourage the growth of bacteria that naturally degrade TCE.

"Bacteria like sugar water," he said. "You just need to get a carbon source that allows them to feed and grow and multiply and thereby create more activity."

Ministry spokesperson Mark Rabbior said although "it's hard for us to characterize something as low level," the remediation will restore the site to meet provincial guidelines for use of contaminated sites.

He said he didn't have any data on the contamination, but understands it's historic.

"Regardless of what the source is the ministry likes to see cleanup projects go ahead, especially in a case where contamination is strictly on-site," Mr. Rabbior said. "It's not a situation where there's an off-site impact or imminent risk. It's not a case of the ministry having issued an order that's requiring a company to do something. They're taking some action to address contamination which is contained on site and the ministry has granted them approval to do that."

City waste management director Beth Goodger said PSC flagged the contamination as requiring remediation as part of the site's transfer. Besides housing the blue-box recycling centre, the property will be home to a new $29-million composting facility expected to be ready in early 2006.

The latter is part of the city's efforts to increase the diversion of household wastes going to the Glanbrook dump by 65 per cent by 2008.

takes 2 years to clean recycling centre

http://www.ancasternews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&call_pageid=1069851995821&c=Article&cid=1097833554114

Is this what we want?
It isn't just the familiar tax-and-spend routine that signals the Liberals are in the driver's seat in Ontario.

It is also the sense of a growing interference in the everyday lives of residents, combined with what looks alarmingly like a jump in secrecy at Queen's Park.

After one year in power, the Liberals appear poised to be peeking over our collective shoulders at every opportunity. Photo radar is back on the table, ready to take snapshots of people and their vehicles as they drive. A newly-proposed pit bull ban has dog lovers wondering what breed might be next, while a new video rating system is set to prevent youths from accessing the more explicitly violent or sexual video games.

Junk food has been banned in schools and smoking in cars also looks to be in the government's sights.

There might well be plausible, even justifiable, reasons for all these government intrusions into our daily lives. Bad drivers kill people. Pit bull attacks are unreasonably harmful and violent and sexually explicit video games are hardly ideal for anyone, never mind impressionable teens.

Still, it is important that society takes note of the freedoms that are steadily disappearing in the guise of public good.

The slippery slope argument is a well-worn one for a simple reason ñ it has proved true, time and again. It is apathy, not antipathy, that is the true oil of repression.

But while the government has been barging into our homes, schools and cars with parental zeal to remake Ontario for our own good, there is some indication it is becoming something less than clear in its own dealings.

A case in point is the super-secret tentative deal struck between the Liberals and the Ontario Medical Association recently that looks at giving doctors raises of up to 35 per cent if they join in family health centres, while lifting a $455,000 billing cap for specialists.

It was hammered out over a period of months under a veil of silence. Once the inevitable leaks began flowing, both Premier Dalton McGuinty and Health Minister George Smitherman refused to divulge the actual four-year costs of the deal, which could be ratified next month.

The government insists this is no big deal. But the government is wrong, as it is taxpayers who will fund every penny of the pact.

Another example is the bureaucratic report estimating the true cost of the Liberals' campaign promises that was blocked by the government until a Freedom of Information ruling ordered its release.

And some critics have also found it passing strange that Cyndy DeGiusti, vice-president of child advocacy at Sick Kids Hospital, handed in her resignation only days after publically stating that a $45-million budget shortfall at the hospital could impact patient care.

Opposition speculation, fueled by admissions from anonymous hospital sources, is that the long-time Sick Kids employee ran afoul of government directives in speaking out. The basis for the speculation includes a provincial communications strategy for hospitals that offers tips on balancing hospital budgets alongside exhortations to keep its public messages "in a spirit of cooperation" with the government.

Critics see this as a not-so-veiled call to keep hospitals singing from the same songbook (a charge the Liberals deny) in order to win favour from a party that is playing the heavy despite the windfall of the Ontario health care premium and Prime Minister Paul Martin's $41-billion largesse.

Earlier this week, opposition MPPs were calling for a legislative committee to probe DeGiusti's resignation. A typical political power play? Maybe. But an overview of the last year paints a disconcerting picture of a government increasingly invading in the private lives of residents while draping its dealings in secrecy.

Ontarians can decide for themselves is this the Ontario you want?

If it isn't, contact your MPP and tell him or her so, pronto, lest voter silence be mistaken for consent.

The Issue Governmental intrusion Our View Pay attention to what is being taken away

editor comments on loss of rights

South Carolina receives failing grade for cancer deaths

JACOB JORDAN Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Cancer patients face a higher risk of death in South Carolina compared with the rest of the country, according to the state's first report card on the disease.

While the state received a failing grade for cancer deaths, it also received the top grade from the South Carolina Cancer Alliance on Friday because the overall risk of developing the disease was lower than the national average.

The statewide nonprofit group that works to curb cancer in the state reviewed 19 cancers that appear problematic in South Carolina. The report card will serve as a guideline for how the state handles cancer occurrences, death rates and disparities.

The alliance will release a plan next spring hoping to reduce the impact of cancer in the state. One out of five South Carolinians is likely to develop cancer in their lifetime, the report said.

ON THE NET

View the report card: http://www.sccanceralliance.org

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/9991182.htm

Cancer Summit Brings Groundbreaking Findings On Asian-Americans

POSTED: 4:52 pm PDT October 22, 2004
UPDATED: 5:26 pm PDT October 22, 2004

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The nation's top researchers of Asian-American cancer issues gathered in Sacramento Friday to present their latest findings.

The gathering of experts at the UC Davis cancer summit is groundbreaking. It's going to bring some major new public awareness campaigns to generate new cancer awareness and access to care for Asian-Americans.

Researchers with a group called the Asian-American Network for Cancer Awareness, Research and Training, or AANCART, presented the latest evidence, showing that when healthy Asians come to America, they gain weight and develop other harmful habits that increase their cancer risk.

The group presented the first Hmong cancer data ever recorded. It turns out, the Hmong are getting the types of cancers that come from chronic infections, and are preventable.

Also, breast cancer is rising faster in Asian-Americans than in any other ethnic group, especially Korean women.

National Cancer Institute

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/health/3844298/detail.html

Celebrex, Vioxx COX-2  Inhibitors May Stimulate Immune System to Fight Cancer

Oct. 22, 2004 � Vioxx, Celebrex and the other COX-2 inhibitors, which have mostly received bad news recently, are being touted in a new study for their ability to boost the immune system to fight brain and maybe other forms of cancer.

This finding suggest that medications attacking the an enzyme in many tumors, including malignant brain tumors, may boost the immune system's ability to recognize and target these tumors. Blocking the enzyme's expression in laboratory tests interrupted the series of cell-level events and led to the development of cells capable of launching an immune response.

Results of the study on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) appear in the October 1 issue of the Journal of Immunology. While COX-2 inhibition has been considered an attractive anti-cancer strategy, results of earlier studies on a variety of tumors have been inconsistent, puzzling and sometimes seemingly contradictory.

Furthermore, because COX-2 is a complex enzyme that is affected by a variety of conditions and biochemical substances, many of its mechanisms and effects are not clearly understood.

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Health/4-10-22Cox2.htm

Smoking ban ignored to please customers

*story from yesterday

http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2004/10/22/story16004.asp

Smoked out publican has last word

THE city publican fined last week for a breach of the smoking ban at his Newgate Street premises has described the law introduced at the end of March by Micheál Martin in his capacity as Minister for Health as “undemocratic.”

Speaking exclusively to the Waterford News & Star in the aftermath of his conviction at the District Court, Robert Cunningham refused to be drawn on the €100 imposed by Judge Peter Smithwick but he did question the €1,500 payable in expenses to the South Eastern Health Board.

“We are supposed to be living in a democracy but one man brought in this blanket ban on smoking without making allowances for anything or anybody,” he said.

Mr. Cunningham, who is the first publican in the South East to be fined under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2004, stated that he had no problem with the law but it was not a good law.

“Micheál Martin brought in the smoking ban for the health of the country but he did not take the Irish weather into consideration,” added the publican. He pointed out that he had four smoking customers over the age of 80 years and a man who suffered from MS who would now have to go from a warm bar to the cold street to have their smoke.

“This will put the health of people, and especially the elderly, in jeopardy,” went on Mr. Cunningham, who gave up smoking himself twenty years ago. In addition to policing the smoking ban, he states that he will now have to sweep the footpath outside his Newgate Street premises every day because his premises is landlocked and his customers will have nowhere else to go to smoke.

Asked about a decline in business in the pub trade as a result of the smoking ban, Mr. Cunningham said that he has suffered a drop and he had to let one staff member go because of it.

Meanwhile, non-smoking customer Kieran Power feels that he is also a victim of the smoking ban. “I come out to have a pint and a chat but now all the craic is outside the door,” he complained. “I have no friends anymore. We start a conversation and it lasts for five minutes then people go outside to smoke and when they come back they are talking about something completely different and I am the outsider.”

Mr. Power also believes that Minister Martin got the smoking ban all wrong. No consideration was given to the elderly…many of whom looked forward to going out for a pint and a smoke every day. Before, it someone was missing for two or three days we would know that something was wrong but because the elderly are not going to the pub now people living alone could be ill and no one would miss them or think anything was wrong,” he said.

http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2004/10/22/story16005.asp

BY IAN MYLCHREEST BUSINESS PRESS
Nevada collects over $60 million in excise taxes on cigarettes each year. Last Monday it reached for another $800 when it sent two tax inspectors to the Las Vegas Convention Center to ensure that tobacco companies paid use taxes due on cigarette samples they were distributing at the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) trade show. The show started at noon, but the inspectors were on site by 9 a.m. handing out the self-assessment forms to manufacturers such as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to ensure they complied.
Convenience stores have been a strong ally of the tobacco industry because so much of their revenue comes from cigarette sales. Most recently, for example, they resisted efforts to bring tobacco under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when that plan was before the United States Senate.
Sources familiar with the NACS situation estimate that some 10,000 cigarettes were distributed as samples at the show and would have thus attracted a tax of approximately $800. The taxes were levied under N.R.S. 350.370, which sets a "use tax" for tobacco products imported into Nevada. The accepted practice, according to Steve Pacitti, a tax attorney with Kummer Kaempfer Bonner & Renshaw, has been that the use tax was not invoked unless a sale took place. Pacitti was called in to advise the association on remedies it might have to rid the show of what it viewed as a nuisance tax collection.

Executives with NACS were, a source says, "in shock" over the tax officials' behavior, as were officials at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors' Authority. Terry Jicinsky, senior vice president of marketing for the LVCVA declined to characterize the authority's attitude except to say it was working with the tax department to resolve the issue. Those negotiations were, he says, "very preliminary." Officials with the NACS declined to comment for this story.

Other sources suggested, however, that both the association and the authority were outraged at the way in which tax officials ambushed them. Pacitti was brought into the situation to find an amicable solution but says the tax officials refused to budge. Officials in the Attorney General's Department told Pacitti they agreed with the department's broad interpretation of "use" under the law.

"They said that they had always had the right to levy the tax under the statute," he explains, "but they had done so now because they had the manpower to enforce it." Apparently, the Department of Taxation has recently hired additional staff and that gives it sufficient manpower to enforce the law.
Pacitti says an official in the Taxation Department's Carson City office told him that the levy was being made under the general use tax provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes. This, he says, opens up the possibiliity that many other kinds of samples and giveaways could be taxed under the provision.
"You'd think if they wanted to be business-friendly they would just ignore it," he says.
Pacitti says he thinks, however, that state officials are zeroing in on the issue because the samples in question were cigarettes. In any case, he advised the association that the tax levied was a plausible interpretation of the statute and suggested they file for a refund to test the meaning of the statute in court. R.J. Reynolds, for one, is thinking about doing so.
Taxation Department officials did not return calls seeking comment.

http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2004/10/22/news/news03.txt

Letter to editor

I was just reading (again) you coverage of the bars that were barely surviving from the bylaw.  It occurred to me wouldn't it be good to have the facts of how they are coping now?  Is the business still in existence, or flourishing? What are the owners’ feelings of the bylaw now?  Where are they now?   What did it take to cope in the over year ban on smoking?   They seem like hard working individuals, and would like to see if they are rewarded.
Here are the two articles, done by your paper.

Going up in smoke 2003-11-15 03:30:16- ON, CA
London's smoke-free bylaw came into effect July 1 and, argue most bar operators interviewed by Free Press reporter Jennifer O'Brien, it's driving them out of business.

This place used to be smoking. But on a weekday afternoon, while the lunch crowd is out lunching, London's legendary Ridout Tavern is all but empty.

And Chris Georgopolous, owner since 1977, has never seen it this bad.

"It's the worst I've ever seen it and with the cold weather it's getting worse and worse," he said. "It used to be so busy, we were full at lunch and after work. Now that people can't smoke in here, we are empty."

Georgopolous is one of several downtown bar owners who say London's smoke-free bylaw, brought in July 1, is snuffing out business.

While some owners invested thousands to install heated patios, Georgopolous and others are pondering whether to close during quiet afternoons and cut drink prices to lure a young night crowd.

"It's no sense me being here for lunch when nobody comes in," he said. "We had a busy lunch every day and when the bylaw came in everybody moved to the patio. Then when http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/11/15/258287.html

Some bars barely surviving, anti-smoking bylaw blamed –ON,CA
JENNIFER O'BRIEN, Free Press Reporter  2003-11-15 03:30:34

Several London bar owners say the city's smoke-free bylaw is killing them. Only four months after the bylaw came into effect, downtown operators say they're barely surviving -- one has already closed his doors.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/11/15/258296.html

Thcu  Workplace  Project

ID: 94

Program Training and Consultation Centre

Janet Nevala

c/o City of Ottawa Public Health & Long Term Care, 495 Richmond Rd

Ottawa, Ontario  K2A 4A4

Telephone: 1-800-363-7822

Web: www.ptcc.on.ca

Contact A: janet.nevala@ottawa.ca, 1-800-363-7822

Contact B: 1-800-363-7822,  

Level: Level D Supporting Organization

Sector: Ontario Health Promotion Resource System

Mandate: The Program Training and Consultation Centre (PTCC) is a resource centre of the Ontario Tobacco Strategy and is funded by the Community and Health Promotion Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.  The Centre is a partnership between: Public Health and Long-Term Care Branch of the City of Ottawa, RBJ Health Management Associates, and the Centre for Applied Health Research at the University of Waterloo. 

The PTCC is one of several Health Promotion Resource Centres in Ontario. They serve staff and volunteers working in tobacco and health in Ontario in local public health departments, local councils on smoking and health, community health centres, and voluntary organizations. 

The PTCC provides training and consultation services to enhance the capacity of Ontario communities to implement effective community-based tobacco use reduction strategies.   Training workshops cover various topics such as minimal contact interventions and strategies to promote and support smoke-free workplaces.  They offer on-site consultation to support program planning and implementation on various topics such as environmental tobacco smoke and bylaw development, smoking cessation and stages of change, and reaching the hard to reach tobacco user. 

They also offer a Resource Dissemination Service that that aims to improve access to program resources for tobacco control.  They produce a Resource Catalogue (available online) that lists resources available through both the Service and other key organizations.  Resources cover cessation, protection, and prevention. 

All activities are indirectly related to stroke because of tobacco focus. Many material mention heart and stroke. 

Key publications include a new PTCC resource Clearing the Air in Workplaces -- A Guidebook for Developing Effective Tobacco Control Policies. This has been used in recent workplace workshops hosted by PTCC. 

Workplace Activities:

To provide training and consultation to build capacity for tobacco control program planning and implementation at the community level. 

Workplace health promotion is a secondary priority of the organization. They primarily support the occupational health and safety and voluntary health practices approaches to workplace health promotion, with no focus on the organizational change approach. They also support bylaw development for smoke-free public places and workplaces. 

They offer the following services to support workplace health:

- training and professional development

- consultations (advice/expertise)

They also provide tools (materials) so that public health units can work directly with workplaces. 

They have been involved in workplace health promotion for less than one year.  They do not  provide direct support services for workplaces. 

They partner and work with other organizations in supporting workplace health promotion including

- Public Health Units across the province

- Ontario Tobacco Free Network

- THCU. 

Status: Done

Participant in key informant survey: True

Did we talk to anyone else to get this: False

Workplace health priority levels:

Concerned with organizational changes: False

Concerned with OHS: True

Other:   

Taken from: THCU Workplace Project Stakeholders Database 

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:lSS5u7XxAYUJ:www.thcu.ca/Workplace/documents/StakeholderDatabaseMergedOct03.doc+Smoke-Free+Futures+Project.+Grey+Bruce+Health+Unit.+August,+1997.&hl=en&client=googlet

Environmental watchdog slams province -TORONTO, ON, CA
A new report urges aggressive action to deal with issues of critical importance. CASSANDRA SZKLARSKI, CP   2004-10-22 03:33:24

Ontario landfills are brimming with one billion aluminum pop cans and mounds of discarded cellphones, computers and televisions, the province's environmental watchdog said yesterday as he pushed for an aggressive plan to deal with the problem. Gord Miller's fifth annual report also accused the province of allowing thousands of development projects to escape environmental scrutiny and noted that 40 per cent of the province's cities have no bylaws forbidding toxic material from entering the sewer system.

Critics were quick to complain about what was absent from the 208-page report -- namely any mention of chronic pollution from Ontario's coal-fired power plants or conservation efforts for the Great Lakes in the face of a plan to divert water to the United States.

"I think this was a softball report, quite frankly," said Dan McDermott of the Sierra Club environmental group.

"It was not tough on a number of issues that needed to be tough. (Miller) danced all around the issue of mercury from Ontario Power Generation . . . and its role in terms of toxicity in the environment and human health."

McDermott also dismissed the idea that there is excess water to be drained away from the Great Lakes as "fiction."

Miller called Ontario's record for recycling aluminum cans "abysmally bad," noting that only 42 per cent of cans were collected in 2002 through the province's blue box program.

In contrast, most Canadian jurisdictions with a deposit-refund system regularly capture 65 to 85 per cent of cans, he said.

In 2002, the Brewers of Ontario reported that more than 91 per cent of the beer cans and 98 per cent of beer bottles sold through its Beer Store outlets were returned for deposit.

Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky said she was disappointed by the low rate of return for aluminum cans, which are typically worth $1,800 a tonne. One billion cans would be worth about $25.5 million.

"I'm disappointed that a product that can be placed in the blue box that is a very valuable product . . .is not maximized across this province," said Dombrowsky, who has asked Waste Diversion Ontario to examine ways to increase return rates.

"It is very easy to put your aluminum products in the blue box."

The report also found large quantities of toxic substances still flow through Ontario sewage treatment plans and into rivers and lakes.

"Ontario seems to have lost sight of how important it is to control what goes into sewers in terms of overall sewage treatment," Miller said.

He called on the government to do more to ensure sewers are better protected with bylaws that specifically prohibit metals or "persistent organics," which sewage treatment plants are not equipped to deal with.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/10/22/680097.html

Do you give the McGuinty Government a passing grade during its first year in power? NO 92.21%  YES 7.79%  (Barrie, ON, CA)

http://thenewvr.com/news/index.html

Junk Food Banned in Schools

Queen's Park wants to teach your kids a healthy lesson.

The McGuinty government is banning the sale of junk food at all elementary schools.

Education ministser Gerard Kennedy says too many schools are in teh bad habit of relying on vending machines as a source of income, and that's coming at the expense of children's health.

Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004

http://thenewvr.com/News/index.asp

EU Unveils Database of Anti-Smoking Images for Cigarette Packs

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- European Union regulators unveiled 42 anti-smoking pictures that EU nations can use on cigarette packages to limit the market for tobacco companies including Altria Group Inc., owner of Philip Morris International.

Images such as rotten lungs, a man with a grapefruit-sized throat tumor and a body in a mortuary can be paired with text warnings on cigarette packs, said the European Commission, the 25- nation EU's regulatory arm. The commission also announced a 72 million euro ($91 million) media campaign against smoking.

``People need to be shocked out of their complacency about tobacco,'' Health Commissioner David Byrne said at a Brussels press conference. Ireland and Belgium are among EU nations that intend to use the pictures next year, the commission said.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=auRYi.FPX1Fo&refer=uk

The federal government is joining with Canada's largest tobacco company to ward off a lawsuit brought by a B.C. smoker who argues the words "light" and "mild" on cigarette packages constitute a consumer fraud because those brands are as harmful as regular cigarettes.

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh "is not happy to be in this situation," spokesman Ken Polk said yesterday, adding the minister will continue to push for tobacco control. "But the government has a certain legal responsibility in such cases."

The suit was launched by Kenneth Knight of Roberts Creek, B.C. He says Imperial Tobacco Ltd. engaged in misleading advertising by labelling cigarettes as light and mild and should, therefore, refund money to those people who purchased them. He also wants the words removed from the packages.

Mr. Knight wants the suit to be classified as a class action.

That issue will be argued in B.C. court on Monday; before the lawsuit can go to trial, a judge must decide whether it warrants that certification.

Mr. Knight says in his statement of claim that the companies aggressively promoted the brands even though they knew that smokers "compensate" for reduced levels of tar by puffing harder, blocking ventilation holes in the cigarettes, holding the smoke in their lungs for longer periods or simply smoking more.

Imperial counters that the federal government forced the tobacco companies to introduce and promote cigarettes with lower levels of tar decades ago even though senior Health Department officials were warned as early as 1970 that they may offer no health benefit. And it says it was the government that published the tar and nicotine levels that formed the basis of the promotions.

Rather than dispute Imperial's allegations, the government, which was named by the company as a third party in the dispute, will join the company in trying to prevent the class action. In its affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the government argues that the case is too unwieldy to be certified because the plaintiffs could include anyone who ever purchased light and mild cigarettes in British Columbia.

The government's decision to fight the suit comes three years after former federal health minister Allan Rock asked the tobacco companies to voluntarily remove the light and mild designations and then threatened to legislate when they did not comply. That legislation died when Mr. Rock was shuffled from the health portfolio and his successor, Anne McLellan, did not pursue the matter.

Paul Vickery, the lead counsel for the government, denied yesterday that the government is jumping in on the side of the tobacco company but said it had to protect its interests.

"Potentially, this is a very significant claim," he said, "and it would not be appropriate for the government to simply sit back and not take a position on the litigation."

But anti-smoking activists are incensed.

"The government decided to take the unethical option by getting in bed with the industry," said Garfield Mahood, executive director of the Non-Smokers Rights Association.

Cynthia Callard of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada said the situation places Mr. Dosanjh in an awkward position. "I'm sure he never dreamt when he was attorney-general [of British Columbia] suing tobacco companies that he would end up on the same side of the courtroom [as Imperial Tobacco]."

In one of many similar suits launched in the United States, an Illinois judge ordered Philip Morris to pay $10.1-billion (U.S.) in damages, including paying back to smokers the costs of the cigarettes they had purchased.

For its part, Imperial has tabled a defence that places the blame for light and mild cigarettes squarely at the feet of the Health Department. The company says it was told by federal authorities in 1978 to introduce brands of cigarettes with reduced levels of tar and to "promote the lower tar brands so they had higher sales volumes than those with higher tar and nicotine yields."

Minutes of a 1970 meeting between Health Department officials and representatives of the tobacco industry produced by Imperial suggest the government was told at that time that the levels of tar could not be accurately assessed because they would be affected by the compensation effect. "The deputy minister appeared to be impressed by these arguments which were clearly new to him," the minutes say.

The government's decision to act against Mr. Knight came as a surprise, his lawyer, David Klein, said.

"We thought that they would support our position or at the very least take no position on the certification motion, especially since they seem to be on the same side in our view that describing a cigarette as light or mild is misleading," Mr. Klein said.

"We'll just have to fend off both the defendant and the federal government in their opposition."

Ottawa sides with cigarette companies or

 http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041022-014702-5584r.htm

Violence tally increases along Hudson Bay coast –NT, CA

ANE GEORGE October 22, 2004

In another incident last week in Inukjuak, a man barely escaped being fatally shot.

A father and his son headed outside at 6:30 a.m. to have a cigarette. The father went back inside to go to the bathroom.

His son started kicking on the door, so finally he opened the door to find his son had a gun pointed at his head. As the father grabbed the rifle, it went off and up through the roof.

No one was injured.

The son, who was charged with careless use of a firearm, was taken into custody and sent to a hospital in the South for evaluation.

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavik/41022_02.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. cigarette makers used heavy discounting to try to prop up sales in 2002, even as they cut spending on most types of advertising, according to a report released on Friday by the Federal Trade Commission.

The six largest cigarette manufacturers spent more than $7.8 billion on price discounts paid to retailers and wholesalers in 2002, driving their overall advertising and promotional budgets up 11.2 percent to an all-time high of $12.47 billion, the FTC said.

Spending on the discounts and other promotional allowances now makes up the biggest portion of those budgets. Between 2001 and 2002 it more than doubled to $9.66 billion, the FTC said in its annual report on cigarette sales and advertising.

At the same time, cigarette makers spent less money on advertising in newspapers, magazines and at retail outlets.

The FTC's 2002 data are the most recent available.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6585573

Smoking ban ignored to please customers -IE
  Friday, October 22, 2004
A WATERFORD city publican maintained he was under pressure from his customers and worried about his livelihood when he permitted cigarette smoking behind closed doors at his premises on July 1 last.
Two undercover environmental health officers, who got into the live music session in the pub that night, witnessed ashtrays on the tables and people smoking openly.
The story unfolded at Waterford District Court last week when Robert Cunningham, licensee of Mullane’s Bar, Newgate Street, Waterford, was charged with a breach of the smoking ban at his premises on July 1. The President of the District Court, Judge Peter Smithwick imposed a fine of €100 and ordered the publican to pay €1,500 expenses. He was given two months to pay or face a month’s prison sentence.
Gerard Hurley, who prosecuted the charge on behalf of the South Eastern Health Board, said that it was the first of its kind in the South East. The Health Board, he said, had received a number of complaints from members of the public in April, May and June of this year that smoking was taking place at the Newgate Street bar.
Environmental health officers went to the premises and spoke to the licensee and his employees and the licensee was also written to in relation to the consequences of not enforcing the ban.
On July 1 two environmental health officers called to the premises at 10.30 p.m. The front door was locked but they gained entry when the door was opened for another customer.
Ashtrays were on the table and smoking was observed taking place. Mr. Cunningham was on the premises and there was no effort made to stop people smoking. When he was confronted, he denied that smoking had taken place.
The prosecution also stated that the South Eastern Health Board had to invest a considerable amount of time to bring the case to court. There were expenses totalling €1,800.